The 50/1.2L stands out in the EF lens line, not for its sharpness, but for the beautiful way in which it draws, especially in the f/1.2 to f/2.8 range. Canon obviously designed it with a certain look in mind.

Are you saying Canon designed the 50L not to be sharp but instead to get a 'certain look'? I really doubt Canon would design an L prime with sharpness NOT their top priority... if what you're saying is indeed the case, then I wonder what the Canon engineers had in mind when they designed the 24mm 1.4 Mk I?

Now, if Canon is indeed planning to release a 35mm MkII and 14-24mm f2.8 they better make sure making them tack sharp is their main priority.

anyone has a rough idea of the price for the 35L II? im seeing a price tag of roughly $2,000.00 correct me if im wrong.

Probably $1500 or so... If they go with $2000 that would cut the possible buyers down significantly....this is a general wide angle lens... Lots of people could want it...but only if priced properly...go a bit too high it becomes a specialty type pricing (like TS E, or ultra wide prime at 2k as in 14mm). No they will have to come somewhere in the 1500 to 1600 range...it will quickly slide down to the current L prime average of ~1400 after release and initial rush is gone. Not sustainable for a 35mm otherwise.

$1479 is the B&H price when there are no rebates. Why Canon would spend a lot on R&D to make a 35mm 1/4L II that will cost almost as version 1 costs. There is no logic on that. Add to the fact that we know what Canon does to the prices of the next version lenses...

The 50/1.2L stands out in the EF lens line, not for its sharpness, but for the beautiful way in which it draws, especially in the f/1.2 to f/2.8 range. Canon obviously designed it with a certain look in mind.

Are you saying Canon designed the 50L not to be sharp but instead to get a 'certain look'? I really doubt Canon would design an L prime with sharpness NOT their top priority... if what you're saying is indeed the case, then I wonder what the Canon engineers had in mind when they designed the 24mm 1.4 Mk I?

Now, if Canon is indeed planning to release a 35mm MkII and 14-24mm f2.8 they better make sure making them tack sharp is their main priority.

I'm not saying they designed it "not to be sharp". As I mentioned, it tests very sharp. It's just not as sharp as the 85/1.2L or the 200/2L. Sharpness is just one goal for a lens designer. It isn't the only goal. A lot of goals come to together in a lens design.

The 50/1.2L stands out in the EF lens line, not for its sharpness, but for the beautiful way in which it draws, especially in the f/1.2 to f/2.8 range. Canon obviously designed it with a certain look in mind. It is easily my most-used prime and the last L prime that I would sell. The 24L, 35L, 85L, 100L and 135L are all exquisitely good, but not as useful for me. And it tests pretty well for sharpness. In LensRentals.com's "The Great 50mm Shootout", the 50L tested better for sharpness than Nikon, Sigma and Zeiss 50mm lenses, though not quite as high as two Leica 50mm lenses.

How can you not understand that it costs a lot of money, and the 50/1.8 is dirt cheap and sharper at f/8. Therefore, the 50L is crap.

</sarcasm>

Back on topic....

If there's a 35L II, I'll definitely upgrade from my current 35L. If there's a 14-24L, I'll have to decide on whether or not to switch out my 16-35L II. I use a 10-stop ND a lot with that lens, and I've not ever felt a huge need for wider than 16mm...

Optically, the Sigma 50/1.4 seems quite good. But when I read reliable reports describing the Sigma's AF as "very inconsistent" (TDP) and "schizophrenic" (lensrentals.com)...well, I'd rather not have my intended subject be part of that creamy bokeh - the best IQ in the world sucks if the lens can't achieve correct focus.

It's interesting that you mentioned the 85L as 'bad ass' - given slow AF, and that the 85/1.8 is one of the best values in the Canon lineup for IQ/cost, and the very nice Sigma 85/1.4 is half the price of the 85L, I'd have thought the 85L would also be an overpriced pile of...whatever.

well, as far as the AF of the Sigma goes.. I had mine calibrated at sigma (took him one afternoon), so did my friend - both lenses worked like a charm afterwords (well up to f/3.2 - never really went smaller) - but yeah, it sucks to be the owner of a new 50/1.4 most of the time.. but in the end.. it pays of.. metaphorically as well as literally..

the 85L was designed with mostly one purpose as far as i can tell.. to get sharp pictures at f/1.2 - does it? yes - and it should.. if you are going to buy that chunk of glass.. you better hell use it at f1.2-f/2.. or you may as well get the f/1.8 you mentioned - the 85L isn´t cheap, but you get for what you payed for, a really "bad-ass" lens you will love to use at f/1.2.. with the 50L you simply don´t get that and if you did.. hell.. charge 2k€ if you will.. people will want to buy a sharp 50/1.2.as far as the sigma 85mm goes.. sure.. it is half the price, but at least in this case.. you get what you pay for with the Canon.. and that is the only 85mm lens that goes to f/1.2 and is actually sharp when doing so.. and hey.. it´s only 2x the price of the Sigma.. the 50L is 3.5x the price..

if third party lenses are now being tested with IQ just as good as the "overpriced" canon lenses then why complain about canon's pricing? just go buy the third party lens and be happy.

its as if deep down inside you want the canon lens...but why? if the third party lens is just as good but cheaper....

I agree with this statement completely. Personally, I am extremely interested in the new Sigma 35mm 1.4, and my purchase will depend on how this rumor pans out. I also think the Sigma 50mm F1.4 is an excellent lens, especially considering the price. I don't think anyone is arguing over which lense gives you more for your money.

That's when you need to step back and remember not everyone has the same budget as us. Sure, I can't afford to drop $1500 on a new 50mm lens right now, but that doesn't mean others can't. Just read this thread, one said he would gladly trade in his 16-35 and $3k for a single UWA. Great for him, if he can afford it, and the new lens suits his needs. Just because I can't afford it right now doesn't mean everyone else has to make purchases bsaed on my budget.

If you absolutely need F1.2 and weathersealing, what other options are there? You can complain all you want about it being overpriced (And I agree, to an extent) but that doesn't change the fact that the people that need F1.2 and weathersealing don't have any other choice. We can happily buy the Sigma (Actually, I won't, I'm worried by the focus shift... waiting for the canon 50mm 1.4 replacement) and they can happily purchase the canon version. Everyone wins.

the 85L was designed with mostly one purpose as far as i can tell.. to get sharp pictures at f/1.2 - does it? yes - and it should.. if you are going to buy that chunk of glass.. you better hell use it at f1.2-f/2.. or you may as well get the f/1.8 you mentioned - the 85L isn´t cheap, but you get for what you payed for, a really "bad-ass" lens you will love to use at f/1.2.. with the 50L you simply don´t get that and if you did.. hell.. charge 2k€ if you will.. people will want to buy a sharp 50/1.2.as far as the sigma 85mm goes.. sure.. it is half the price, but at least in this case.. you get what you pay for with the Canon.. and that is the only 85mm lens that goes to f/1.2 and is actually sharp when doing so.. and hey.. it´s only 2x the price of the Sigma.. the 50L is 3.5x the price..

Thanks...see, I just knew there was a reason I have the 85L II and not the 50L.

I just recently purchased the 35L, though I do not regret it. Really loving that lens, and it compliments the 85L so nicely. I had the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 when I had a crop sensor, and the autofocus was never consistent. It would take a lot for me to consider another Sigma lens, no matter how good the image quality can potentially be. If there is a 35L II about to debut, I doubt it is in response to Sigma, but rather in response to Canon L series owners looking for a refresh. While I'd like weather sealing, I find the current 35L to be a great lens, and I probably won't get too envious of the II.

Now, if it was a 35 f/1.2L...

I'd like a wide angle, and a 14-24 would be intriguing. That is a lens I'd save up and pay for if it is superlative. 16-35 kind of gets "only" good, not great, reviews, though perhaps that is just in comparison to Nikon's 14-24. Was about ready to pull the trigger on the Tokina 16-35, though I might just wait to see if anything happens on January 8th.

So I was wondering: let's say Canon announces a 17-40 f/4 L IS instead of the 14-24 f/2.8How many of you will be happier (not just happy for Canon or happy in general for humankind- I mean will seriously plan to buy it)?Nikon did it- can't be out of the question, and will probably cost similar to the 16-35 IIWould you prefer a 17-40 f/4 IS or a 14-24 f/2.8?

I like the idea of the 14-24 range much better than a 17-40. I think between f4 IS and 2.8 it's too close of a call in the UWA range. IS is just not as practical in the UWA range, and 2.8 will be more expensive to produce. I'm sure Canon is considering to market for both. If Canon makes a 14-24 2.8 that performs better than Nikon's I definitely wouldn't mind. It's gonna be expensive as hell though.

the 85L was designed with mostly one purpose as far as i can tell.. to get sharp pictures at f/1.2 - does it? yes - and it should.. if you are going to buy that chunk of glass.. you better hell use it at f1.2-f/2.. or you may as well get the f/1.8 you mentioned - the 85L isn´t cheap, but you get for what you payed for, a really "bad-ass" lens you will love to use at f/1.2.. with the 50L you simply don´t get that and if you did.. hell.. charge 2k€ if you will.. people will want to buy a sharp 50/1.2.as far as the sigma 85mm goes.. sure.. it is half the price, but at least in this case.. you get what you pay for with the Canon.. and that is the only 85mm lens that goes to f/1.2 and is actually sharp when doing so.. and hey.. it´s only 2x the price of the Sigma.. the 50L is 3.5x the price..

Thanks...see, I just knew there was a reason I have the 85L II and not the 50L.

I've owned the 50/1.8 Mrk I, the 50 f1.4, and I currently own the 50L. The 50L is worth the cost IMHO. I have real world use of these three lenses. If you want razor sharp 50mm, buy the 50 macro.

Neuro, you have so many lenses I think 50L ownership is just a matter of time for you. You want it —you're looking for validation.

symmar22

Well, I have the 50mm f2.5 Compact Macro, and my feelings are mixed. It is extremely sharp around f4 in the middle, but you need f8 to get perfect corners. The AF is quite inconsistent, the vignetting is a disaster until f5.6 minimum. But I use it for architecture, and it has no distortion at all, combined to an excellent sharpness until f16, good at f22 (only f32 is really bad). The mechanics are awful too, nasty focus, and it gives only 1:2 macro. The only thing that can't be beaten is the price, I got it for 220 Euro.

This is one lens Canon should update in an emergency. Even the old Nikkor 55mm AIS beats the hell out of it.

I could be interested in the 35 f1.4, depending on the tests, I will wait until I can compare the f2 IS and the 1.4 II though.

For the 14-24mm, I have no urgent need, but I would like to see how it compares to Nikon's, hoping it won't be 3.5k.